re: Karen Read murder trial - Not guilty on main - guilty of OUI(DUI) only

quote:

---

Maybe someone hit him over the head

---

I just finished the last released episode on Max. That is what I am thinking happened.

He pissed someone off. That person attacked him, but didn't mean to kill him.
They did a good enough job of cleaning up everything to not be able to prove without a reasonable doubt. I think those marks on his arm could be from the dog, which was rehomed in may 2022. It was a German Shepard mix.

I think the dog might have thought John was a threat to its owner possibly if things got physical (which I don't think there is evidence of) and attacked him. He was accidently killed and they covered (or attempted to) it all up.

Replying to an excerpt of a quote: "He [censored] someone off. That person attacked him, but didn't mean to kill him.

Did the attacker use ice skates? It was extremely slippery for any physical activity. And he was a police officer trained for attackers at the police academy. The 6 cups suggest that 6 people were present. That would seem more likely for killing one of America's finest.

Replying to the quote: "I cannot believe her lawyers allowed this footage to be filmed and aired right before the 2nd trial. I was, and still am convinced she did not murder him, but she is really coming off class A bitch. I get it, you’re fighting for your life, but damn, show a little empathy for someone other than yourself."

Lawyers should advise not to discuss ongoing cases. But her lawyers are expensive. And the documentary is helping her pay them. She was saying some incriminating details. Like when Jennifer was on the stand. Karen mentioned that Jennifer and her were the only ones there. That was some very interesting information.

Replying to an excerpt from a quote:"Karen’s taillight was intact the next morning and the tow truck driver stated it was intact when he dropped it off at the police station"

How would a towing company know that? The lights they use are independent. The towing flashers and everything would cover the other vehicle. Plus the lights would need ice scraping just to see the light clearly. It may have still looked intact. But it wasn’t. I seriously doubt if the towing company scrapped off ice to notice a broken light because the towing lights made the car lights unnecessary.

What time does the trial start today?

I think 9am, but Karen does have some other hearing before the motion hearing.

quote:

---

You are really hiding a horse saying no car was involved

---

No car was involved.

Hank Brennan is such a slimy POS.

Dude commented that he didn't know something, but maybe the CW knew about it. Hey moron you have been paid somewhere around $250,000 by the CW. You are the Commonwealth you overpaid loser.

Reply to the quote:"No. Nothing covered the rear of her car. It was on a roll back and the driver said he did a walk around before and after."

A driver should have seen a pedestrian with lights working. I don't think John was seen. I think the taillight was inoperable. (Based on autopsy evidence.)

Replying to an excerpt of a quote:"I’m saying based on the physics of a possible pedestrian strike Officer John O’Keefe was not hit by a vehicle."

His eyelids show me that he hit the taillight. He was not attacked. The snow and ice would have helped an attacked eye. But being next to a tail pipe infected them. On the documentary when Alan Jackson was presented photos. His first reaction was that it was a car. (They showed the arm.) What courtroom politics changed his mind? In physics you have a tampered conclusion throwing off the original arithmetic. I don't believe the body just landed where it was found. I believe it was relocated for unknown reasons. (First aid barricading or God forbid something more negligent.)